My Radio Show Appearance with Carol Brouillet

On
March 3, 2008, Carol Brouillet interviewed me on her radio show. On that day,
oil prices hit a new record (immediately surpassed), at more than $103 per barrel,
which made the subject more topical. Links to the show’s audio files are here
(first hour,
second
hour); here
is the page that introduces us (and this
one). This page hosts those audio files,
and it also presents excerpts from a rough outline that I prepared for the show.
As
an experiment, I also have published a sound file on my site,
with the commercials removed.I do
not want to turn my site into a high bandwidth one (it is a 15 megabyte file),
but that show is a good introduction to my work, even though it barely
dented the outlined topics. Carol’s show is the first time that I have publicly
discussed my experiences and my website’s subject matter. Also, as a writer friend
helpfully told me long ago, my writings were like my speech: too much trying to
come out at once (which is also evident on Carol’s show). It has taken many years,
along with professional editorial assistance and feedback from many friends, allies
and assailants, to make my writings more readable. My public speaking may never
attain the clarity that I have aspired to achieve in my writings. This essay
attempts to do some justice to the subject matter that Carol and I discussed.
I may eventually do more shows. The activist effort that
resulted in my appearance on Carol’s show also led to Adam Trombly’s appearances on
March 17 and 24, 2008 (a partial transcript of his first appearance is here
and the sound files are here).
Brian O’Leary may also do a show. Being a warm-up
act for those guys is an honor. There are not many like them on earth today.

An
Outline for My Public Speaking Appearances

Any
public discussion of this site’s subject material will necessarily be skimming
the surface. The following narrative provides links to deeper explorations of
the subjects that I publicly discuss.

Richard
Heinberg related a good exercise in his The Party’s Over, where we
just look around us and think about the ways in which energy is involved with
providing almost everything that we touch or see.

The
abundance paradigm that free energy could initiate
would not harm or exploit earth’s environment. The so-called
biofuel revolution that is being promoted in many corners these days is not
the basis for an abundance paradigm, is extremely hostile to our fellow species
(which can be summarized with “all non-human life can be sacrificed to meet humanity’s
energy needs”), and has many downsides, several of which can be catastrophic.
Here are some critiques of the biofuel revolution (1,
2,
3, 4).
A recent
estimate calculates that the biological production that provided the energy
that fossil fuels release each year is about four hundred times as much energy
as powers earth’s ecosystems in a year. To replace fossil fuels with biofuels
would raise humanity’s consumption to more than half of earth’s biological production
(and
humanity’s current levels of consumption comprise the primary driver of earth’s
current sixth mass-extinction episode).
That proportion only relates to today’s energy consumption levels, where
less than 20% of humanity currently benefits from the industrialized lifestyle.
To bring humanity to the American energy-consumption level (and resultant standard
of living), there is not enough room on earth’s surface to support it using biofuels.
That is far from an environmentally friendly solution, and bears no resemblance
to an abundance-based one.

While arguments can
also be made for windmills, conventional solar power, and so forth, they are all
weak solutions and, as Brian O’Leary has written, the answer to conventional
energy alternatives is “none of the above.”
New energy and
free energy are closely related terms, and I often use them interchangeably.

Free energy technology exists
today, but those controlling the world’s economic system actively prevent it from becoming publicly available. Free
energy is orders of magnitude beyond the conventional alternative energy solutions,
and can take the world economy into realms largely
unimaginable today. What if, instead of eighty energy slaves, which only
a tiny fraction of humanity enjoys today, every earthly human had a thousand energy
slaves, or ten thousand, and their use harmed nobody and was environmentally harmless?
It could begin looking like heaven on earth, and quickly.

Below
are some of my credentials, which are mainly based on my experiences.

My
partner was made a billion dollar buyout offer
in May 1988. When he refused it, his arrest with a
million dollar bail occurred on June 1988 on fabricated charges. Ventura
County is home of the Rodney King beating verdict and regularly makes the top
ten lists of most corrupt law enforcement jurisdictions in America, and I discovered
it firsthand.

I
then spent twelve years and twelve thousand hours performing the research, writing
and editing that became my twelve-hundred-page website.

In 2003, Brian
O’Leary asked me to help found the New Energy Movement.
When Eugene Mallove was murdered (probably related
to his new energy efforts), that was the beginning of the end of our involvement
(Brian has stated that Mallove’s murder was when he decided that the U.S. was
no longer safe for new energy activists, and he moved to South America).

Ever since
9/11, I have been in relative seclusion with little public interaction. This
show is one of my efforts to reengage the public.

Skepticism
toward my story is normal and understandable. Active skepticism is healthy.
Regarding my tale, the facts are verifiable. Experiences
are attainable.

Learning how the world really
works is feasible, but seeking experiences is vital for learning. Experience
is how knowing can be attained. Reading any website, including
mine, will not bring knowledge to anybody. Evidence and analysis must always
be leavened with experiences, to obtain useful knowledge. Gaining experience
in the free energy field can be hazardous to one’s health, however, and I seek
to help prevent people from learning the free energy lessons the hard way. There
are not yet any happy endings for anybody in this pursuit.

Scarcity-based
ideologies currently dominate human thinking, and those ideologies include:
nationalism, capitalism, communism, organized religion, scientism, rationalism,
materialism and the more obvious racism, sexism, etc. Those ideologies usually
appeal to the ego, as the adherents are often on the “winning team” or aspire
to be. Shedding our scarcity-based indoctrination is not easy. I will probably
always be working at it in myself.

“Most
of the problems that we face in our world today, whether they be spiritual and
religious or scientific, political and economic, are all because people are holding
onto some perspective that has nothing to do with the truth but has to do with
their own belief system and addiction to something that is outdated, and they
can’t let go of it.”

There is usually a
political-economic motivation behind those scarcity-based addictions. Humans
tend to abandon the pursuit of truth, for those that even begin that journey,
and settle for self-serving beliefs, particularly in a world of scarcity, because
those beliefs usually help justify our political-economic-social status.

A
comprehensive perspective is vital for seeing the big picture. R.
Buckminster Fuller was one of the West’s first comprehensivists. I was introduced
to his work after I finished my site in 2002. Fuller’s work should be rescued
from its neglect. Fuller stated that economics is the dog and politics is the
tail, and that political actors have always been stooges of the economic interests.
Fuller stated that until the Industrial Revolution, only
1-in-1,000 lived to a ripe old age and 1-in-100,000 was an economic success,
and that is the reason for the scarcity-hardwiring that afflicts humanity. The
primary difference between communism and capitalism
was who received the benefit of the scarce economic production: those who do the
work, or those who organized the system for their benefit. Both systems and,
in fact, all of today’s political-economic systems are based on economic scarcity.
The law of supply and demand and the invisible hand of competition are greed
and fear-based concepts, and will become meaningless in a world based on economic
abundance. Fuller stated that humanity must change from a fixation on weaponry
to livingry. If
we did, then our problems would be laughably easy to solve. A one-world
government is coming. Whether it will be based on love or fear is the pertinent
issue.

Political-economic dynamics are why
we do not have free energy, not a lack of technology.

All
paradigms are based on assumptions.
Overturning the assumptions is how paradigms change. An abundance paradigm, based
on energy abundance, can eliminate the scarcity assumption that all of today’s
ideologies operate from (economic, political, scientific, religious). Heaven
on earth is feasible with free energy and
the economically abundant, environmentally harmless global civilization that could
result from it. There can be no want, no disease and no strife, if
we want it. But time is short. We are on the brink of several potential catastrophes. With
free energy, all of those threats can disappear almost overnight.

When
dealing with free energy and many similar areas, walking the fine line between
denial and paranoia is a key, and very few are currently capable of walking that line.
There are many objections to free energy (“laws of physics,” “conspiracy theory,” “magic
of capitalism,” “greatness of America,” and so on – and all are rooted in
scarcity-based ideologies). The conspiratorial and structuralist views both have
validity, but neither, by itself, sees the big picture. Conspiracism
is the addiction to conspiracy theories to the exclusion of more comprehensive
studies of global political-economic dynamics.Structuralism is the addiction to structural
explanations to the exclusion of the more “conspiratorial” aspects of global
political-economic dynamics.Peter
Dale Scott and others have been integrating the two perspectives with “deep politics”
and similar analyses. It can also be seen as conscious versus unconscious (it
also generally aligns with their cosmology:
the universe was designed or is an accident).

If all the conspiracy theories
are true, then what? What are we to do? Speaking as somebody whose life was
ruined by those who clandestinely run the world, trying to expose or punish the
Big Boys is a boy’s dream. Thinking that they can be beaten at
their own game is a delusion, and all such reactions are victim-oriented responses,
as is the denial that the Big Boys exist and are actively mischievous. A creator-oriented
response is to acknowledge the Big Boys’ existence and role, and attempt
to make them obsolete, which can help bring humanity into heaven-on-earth
territory, and can even help redeem the Big Boys. The Big Boys can only play
their games with the power that humanity has given them by playing the
victim game. For the herd’s size, the global shepherd’s task is surprisingly
easy. People living in scarcity are easy to manipulate; people living in abundance
are not. The Big Boys intimately understand that dynamic, and keeping humanity
mired in economic scarcity is how they keep their hands on the global levers of
power. In history’s richest and most powerful nation, the vast majority lives
only a few missed paychecks from being homeless. That is a far cry from living
in abundance.

Less than one percent of the scientifically trained
can think past their textbooks, which is common in all disciplines. Max Planck astutely summarized it with:

“A
new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them
see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation
grows up that is familiar with it.”

If
Einstein’s theories had impinged on John Rockefeller’s or another robber baron’s
empire, the world might still have not heard of relativity. Tesla’s
fate is an example of inventiveness in the energy field that threatened to
impact the robber baron empires. Tesla’s journey is an early example of free
energy suppression.

I have yet to
receive any attention from the radical left or any political group on the free
energy issue, or from any earthly group of significance, and I have seen
others try for many years, all futilely. Those groups have included the radical
left, anarchists, the liberal left, the Peak Oil crowd, the Neo-Malthusians, environmentalists, New Agers, the Free Software
Movement, religious groups, scientific organizations, the United Nations and
every progressive organization that I have heard of. The right-wingers are almost
always mired in conspiracism, flag-waving nationalism, etc. Almost everybody
hacks at branches and ignores the root, as we become hooked on our particular brand
of scarcity-based ideology. Abundance
is unimaginable to us, while we see the world through our scarcity-conditioned
eyes.

The most virtuous political-economic-social
movements that I have yet seen still focus on enlarging the tiny slice of humanity’s
scarce economic pie that the poor receive, instead of trying to make that pie
a hundred times larger, so nobody needs to struggle for their slice. The wise
implementation of free energy can accomplish that. Most of what passes for economics
today does not focus on production or consumption, but on the exchange aspect – AKA who owns what. In a world
of scarcity, that becomes the focus; in a world of abundance, the exchange aspect
will become virtually meaningless. Mike Albert’s
Parecon embodies the radical left’s challenge to today’s economic order,
and the book does not even mention energy.

I
have yet to be involved in a sustained, honest, intelligent and informed public discussion of these
issues, and have never even heard of such a discussion. On the Internet, I am
almost invariably ignored, attacked, trolled, banned, and so forth. It is mind-boggling
to me that humanity has yet to mount a fruitful discussion of these critically
important issues.

The Big Boys do not want heaven-on-earth,
because they would not be in charge. Ruling in hell versus being a regular member in heaven is the
choice they have made. However, their ranks are divided. But the Big Boys are a
minor aspect of humanity’s situation, and cannot be beaten at their game. They
can only be made obsolete, and the means become
the ends. The most important lesson that I learned during my free energy
journey is that personal integrity is the world’s
scarcest commodity, and finding a sufficient pool of it that can focus on
the energy issue (with our scarcity-based ideologies
laid aside) is the key to bringing free energy to humanity. I believe
that it does not take many awakened and informed people to catalyze the change
to a global abundance paradigm, and free energy is perhaps the critical
leverage point.

My question
for many years has been this: must humanity achieve enlightenment and true
sentience before it can enjoy the benefits of free energy and an abundance paradigm,
or can its daily reality help catalyze it? It is a conundrum for which I have
never encountered a definitive answer. I think those issues are conjoined. I
am trying the sentience/enlightenment route, after having my life ruined on the
business/technology route, but I am also trying to integrate them. Going the
business/technology route, without understanding the game and the score, is the
path of disaster and a shortened life expectancy. When people begin becoming
familiar with suppressed energy technology, the “productive” responses that progress
beyond denial (AKA armchair “skepticism”)
are almost always along these lines:

Build a free energy device and market
it;

Build
a free energy device and form a mass movement around it;

Build a free energy device and use
it in rural areas, where people think they can live beyond the Big Boys’ reach;

Build a free energy device and wait
for the Big Boys to buy them out (the “lottery winner” approach, which is perilous).

None
of those approaches has worked yet, to any significant degree. The legitimate
technology is taken out of circulation rather quickly, by the carrot
or stick, leaving the chaff behind to be continually
rehashed by the unproductive. All such approaches suffer from misconceptions/delusions
that must be overcome if those pursing free energy hope to achieve anything resembling
success. For instance, building free energy devices is harder than it first appears.
Almost all of the free energy prototypes that I know of have at least one exotic
component that is not easily made in an inventor’s workshop.

Thereare downsides to free energy (weaponized, irresponsible use), but they
are not valid reasons for the innumerable
knee-jerk rejections of free energy that I have encountered over the years.
As Greer has stated when encountering such objections, the worst elements of humanity
already possess this technology.

During
Carol’s show, the second-hour’s
caller broached a subject in my original outline: my story’s credibility. The
caller questioned my credibility because there were not enough names, dates and
documents in my story for his liking.[1]
I state in my writings, several times (1, 2, 3, 4), why I do
not name many names. It is unethical to publish somebody’s name unless they consent
to it, particularly when dealing with my site’s subject matter. That is especially
true for the innocent who want to recover in anonymous peace from their ordeals
and do not desire contact from the public. I do not name names to protect the
innocent, the guilty, the naïve, and the idly curious. I could name Mr.
Deputy or Bill the BPA Hit Man on my site, and even publish contact
information for them. However, that would be like inviting people to go pet the rabbit in Monty
Python’s Holy Grail. People who approach dark path initiates like Mr.
Deputy and Bill the BPA Hit Man, to question them about their roles in Dennis
Lee’s adventures, are putting themselves in jeopardy in ways they may not imagine.
I also do not need the dark path folks coming after me because I am shining the
spotlight on them. This work is difficult enough as it is, without that kind
of unnecessary attention.

Steven Greer, in
his latest book, did the same thing that I do. He left many names out of
his story but, like me, he also named some names of those with public roles in
the events. Somebody posted to the Internet his guesses of the names that Greer
left out. If people do that regarding my writings, not only is it ethically questionable,
they may become legally culpable regarding the innocent, and may receive unwanted
attention from the guilty. Shining a spotlight on the dark path folks is dangerous
business and does little, if any, good, as far as I have seen. Knowing those
names is of little or no use in understanding how the world really works or for
launching a free energy effort.

In addition, several
times when I have omitted names when relating events, they were famous names,
but until such people publicly speak about those events that they participated
in, I will not mention their names in relationship to those events while they
are alive. I have even been constrained by surviving family members from mentioning
the names of the deceased, because the survivors fear the Big Boys’ retribution
and unwanted public attention. That comes with the territory. Those whose research
efforts are confined to Googling up names within seconds of skimming my work are
not my target audience. Dabblers cannot fruitfully study the free energy milieu,
and I advise them to pursue more suitable subject matter. As with all learning
experiences, you get out what you put in.

This
site refers to many primary documents (for instance, see the footnotes to the
My Adventures essay and Dennis’
story), where people can go digging for names, documents, patents and the
like, if they are so inclined. However, with only one exception so far, nobody
who challenged my credibility has ever done any of the homework needed
to validate or invalidate my story. The effort needed to verify most of the important
names, dates, places and documents cited in my story amounts to about one mundane
day of research. The only critic that did some homework was Mr. Skeptic, and his published writings on the subject
are criminally libelous.

I
recently wrote about the marked degeneration in Internet
discourse over the years, which has accelerated since 9/11. A similar phenomenon
has occurred regarding doing one’s homework. In 1996, when I published my first
website, no scholar was referring to the Internet as a reliable information source.
Scholarly material was sparse on the Internet in 1996. The information-superhighway
hype was soon replaced by a gold rush mentality that culminated in the dot-bomb
of 2000-2002. I worked for a dot.com in 1999,
and have worked for one for the past several years. Since 1996, the Internet
has become more substantial, although information sources such as Wikipedia have
deep, structural problems, some of which I encountered
first-hand. Few sources cited in my writings are Internet-based. Most were
obtained in the standard scholarly way: visiting libraries, digging into archives,
locating primary documents, hunting for out-of-print books in antiquarian bookstores,
interviewing people, etc. These days, “research” amongst my critics amounts to
surfing the Internet for ten minutes and then citing (even lauding) Mr. Skeptic’s disinformation website as a worthy
rebuttal to my work. Those kinds of glued-to-the-armchair efforts are worthless.
Learning how the world works will not be accomplished by surfing the Internet.
Information must be leavened by experience, if attaining valid perspectives is
desired.

Ironically, the caller who challenged
my story told one himself on the suppression of innovative energy technology,
which I relate at this footnote.[2]

I am human with
my foibles. Dennis and all other free energy activists are human too. If people
want to criticize us, that is their right. If they want to make credible
criticisms, however, they have set themselves a strenuous task. The best third-party
criticism that I have yet seen regarding Dennis’ journey led me to contribute
to the critic’s effort. I do not entirely agree with that critique, nor do
I consider it deeply informed about Dennis’ journey, but it was the best I have
yet seen and I respected that critic’s perspective. I have seen more than a hundred
criticisms of Dennis’ efforts, including nationally aired TV shows. They have
all, with the exception of that lone credible effort, been riddled with logical fallacies, dishonesty,
inadequate or misleading documentation, and so forth. Credible criticisms are
welcome, but I have yet to see a defensible one that impugned Dennis’ integrity,
the viability of the technologies we pursued, the validity of the material on
my site, or the credibility of the efforts made by Steven
Greer, Brian O’Leary, Adam
Trombly, Sparky Sweet and those of other free
energy activists/inventors that I respect.

Footnotes

[1]I am writing this footnote on April 11, 2008, more than a month
after I was on Carol’s show. A few minutes ago, I finished listening to that
show for the first time, and now realize that the caller did not even read any
of my website before he “took exception” to what I had to say. He knew nothing
of my site, so did not challenge my story’s credibility because it was not documented
well enough for his liking, although that is a standard criticism. The caller
only knew what he heard on the radio. For him to then tell Wallace
Minto’s suppression story after he took exception to mine is odd, but also
reflects the corners that people can paint themselves into. The caller knew
that Minto’s technology was suppressed. On the global energy scene, Minto’s technology
was a minor nuisance at best. Minto is one of more than 10,000 people who had their “disruptive” technology
suppressed in one way or another, and the Big Boys may well not have even been
involved in suppressing Minto’s technology. Capitalism is hostile to disruptive
technologies and the corporate world unwittingly does a great deal of Big Boys’
suppression work for them. Lone inventors and small, capitalistic groups are
the easiest free energy aspirants to derail, and usually are destroyed by their
“allies” or their own character weaknesses before the Big Boys even need to lift
a finger, while the public is oblivious to the dramas. People with the goods
get suppressed very quickly.

The caller claimed to have looked into free energy technology, which I will accept
is true. There is a ton of chaff amongst the free
energy field’s wheat, and the Big Boys are vigilant and have far more resources
to winnow the wheat than any lone investigator can. Either the caller only encountered
free energy chaff or he ran into people who stumbled into the many pitfalls that await the inexperienced and unwary.
Or some of the “mystery”
he encountered was suppression and he did not comprehend what he was seeing.

Or maybe, just maybe, he is right, and free energy technology is
only a myth, but I know better. Whatever the case with the caller
may have been, that was an ironic challenge to my credibility, and served to reiterate
my position: credibility is a two-way street. If people want to challenge my
credibility, doing their homework before they make their challenge can go a long
way toward establishing their own credibility. Pursuing the truth, particularly
regarding something as earth shaking as free energy, is not easy. I have investigated
other controversies such as the JFK hit, the moon
landings, UFOs and other issues, and those subjects
are not for dabblers, and there will always be plenty of mystery around them.
That comes with the territory.

[2]The caller discussed Wallace Minto’s story, because his grandfather
helped fund Minto’s efforts. I knew of Minto’s story, partly because the technology
that Minto pursued was strikingly similar to what we tried in marrying Dennis’
heat pump to Mr. Mentor’s heat engine. Here are links on Minto’s
engine. Minto’s engine and what Dennis attempted are identical in certain
respects, and they have been compared publicly. Minto, like innumerable other
inventors, approached the automobile industry for funding and development, which
is perhaps the most naïve and common approach there is, typical of inventors and the scientifically trained. If an inventor
is lucky, he will be bought out and the technology shelved. Minto received
$25 million for the exclusive rights to his technology, a Japanese car company
built a prototype, and it was then shelved. If the inventor is not so lucky,
his life will be destroyed and he might be murdered. There
are hundreds, if not thousands, of stories like Minto’s. The automobile companies
have possessed technology vastly superior to what is on today’s market for at
least sixty years, and have fended off inventors for as long. The automobile
companies either stonewalled the inventors, bought them out, helped them fall
on their swords or, if all else failed, they got violent. If the technology provided
a minor benefit and did not upset the racketeering paradigm, the automobile companies often stole it. The automobile
industry’s corruption is global in scale. There is no earthly location free
of that corruption, and the auto companies work hand-in-hand
with the oil companies. Sparky Sweet approached
the automobile and energy institutions, and even mailed working prototypes of
his free energy device to the energy institutions, which was when his troubles
really began.

Minto’s
tale also highlights a key aspect of my learning experience. The Big Boys may
not have been involved with suppressing Minto’s technology. The Japanese
auto company easily saw the writing on the wall if an engine like Minto’s ever
came to market. Planned obsolescence and the other racketeering
aspects of capitalism are not confined to U.S. corporations. As Steven Greer has stated, the Big Boys are Godzilla,
but my experience is that while Godzilla is the undisputed king of the global
jungle, it is also filled with T-Rexes, velociraptors
and other predators. After challenging my credibility, the caller then promoted
biofuels, which is one of the worst “solutions” yet proposed
regarding the industrialized world’s energy issues, which I will examine in depth
in my upcoming essay on energy, ecosystems and economics (I plan to publish it
in 2009).